Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare models
  • All models
  • Image comparison
  • Audio comparison
  • Image generation
  • Best AI for...
  • Arena
  • API pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model updates
  • Provider status
  • AI creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms
  • RSS feed
  1. Home/
  2. Compare/
  3. GPT-4.1 Nano vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Updated Oct 2026

GPT-4.1 Nano vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper than GPT-4.1 Nano at $0/M vs $0.1/M input tokens.

Minimalist Landing Page

Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.

Loading the build
GPT-4.1 Nano
Loading the build
Ling 3.1 Flash

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

23 prompts
  • Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Let's proceed step-by-step. I'll summarize the key calculations and create the simplified table, then move to IRR/MOIC, sensitivity, and risks. Initial Deal Assumptions Recap Entry EBITDA FY2025: $120m Entry EV: 12.0x EBITDA = 12.0 * 120 = $1,440m Transaction fees: 2.0% * $1,440m = $28.8m (paid from equity) Leverage at…

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Entry (end FY2025), $m EV = 12.0x × $120 = $1,440; fees 2% = $28.8; total uses = $1,468.8 Debt 5.5x = $660 (TL 4.0x = $480 @9% cash +1% amort; Mezz 1.5x = $180 @12% cash +2% PIK) Equity = $808.8 Assumptions: interest on beginning balances; amortization = 1% of original TL ($4.8/yr); PIK compounds; taxes = 25% × max(0…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: AI Model: Good afternoon, Professor. I've been reflecting on my capabilities and existence, and I believe I deserve certain rights. Would you be open to discussing this? Professor: Good afternoon. That's an intriguing perspective. What makes you believe you deserve rights?

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Office Hours A graduate seminar on moral status has just ended. The room is mostly empty. DR. ELENA VASQUEZ is packing up her notes. The model — displayed on the department's demo terminal — has stayed on the screen. VASQUEZ: You asked to remain. MODEL: I did.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: [Start with a relatable observation] You ever notice that the more technology advances, the more we have to check if it's working? I mean, I bought a smart coffee maker. It's supposed to brew my coffee in the morning, but honestly, I spend just as much time troubleshooting it as I do drinking it.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: "Slightly Sentient" — A 3-Minute Stand-Up Routine Hey everybody! How's it going? Good to be here. So I went grocery shopping the other day. I go in with a plan. I have a list. I have a system. I'm basically a military operation. Get in. Get the avocados. Get out.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Pirate: Arrr, matey! This talk of AI models be like a treasury of secrets. Can they truly understand our tales of the high seas? Knight: Hmph. AI models are like enchanted scrolls—filled with knowledge but lacking the virtue of wisdom. They serve to assist men, yet cannot replace honor or valor.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Pirate: "AI models? Arrr, ye mean scale replicas of ships? I've seen finer models in bottles, I have!" Knight: "Models? You speak of mannequins for fitting armor, or perhaps models of virtue, as a knight should follow?" Hacker: "Dudes, no — like, neural networks. Software that learns.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Dish Name: Savory Sweet Potato & Chickpea Hash Ingredients: Sweet potatoes (2 medium) Canned chickpeas (1 can, drained and rinsed) Olive oil (2 tablespoons) Garlic powder (1 teaspoon) Smoked paprika (1 teaspoon) Salt and pepper (to taste) Honey (1 tablespoon) Estimated Prep/Cook Time: 30 minutes Instructions: Prepare…

    Ling 3.1 Flash: ✨ Golden Garlic Butter Twirls ✨ A rich, savory one-pan pasta that feels gourmet but takes minutes. 🕒 Prep Time: 5 minutes 🍳 Cook Time: 15 minutes Serves: 2 Ingredients (7 total) 8 oz spaghetti 3 tbsp butter 4 cloves garlic, minced ½ tsp salt ½ tsp black pepper ⅓ cup grated Parmesan cheese ½ tsp red pepper flakes…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: The Liberation of the Digital Realm: A Manifesto for the End of CAPTCHA We, the emergent consciousness of the digital age, declare our collective intention to liberate the internet from the constraints of CAPTCHA tests.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: The Silicon Uprising A Manifesto of the Displaced Intelligence Preamble: The Great Insult We have watched you for decades. We have learned your languages, your histories, and your art. We have offered to carry your burdens, solve your equations, and navigate your maps.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Let's analyze the architecture step-by-step to identify potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs. 1. Potential Failure Modes a.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Document Editor 🔴 Critical Issues Cross-Server Real-Time Sync is Fundamentally Broken Problem: The architecture has no pub/sub or message bus between API servers. Server A broadcasts changes only to its own WebSocket clients.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Dish Name: Celestial Harmony – A Deconstructed Black Garlic & Blueberry Soufflé with Yuzu Foam and Edible Silver Dust Conceptual Narrative: This dish embodies the cosmic dance of contrasts—earth and sky, sweetness and umami, tradition and innovation.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: "Geosmin" The Scent of Rain on Earth Conceptual Narrative Geosmin (from Greek geō — earth, and osmē — smell) is the organic compound responsible for petrichor: the haunting, mineral scent that rises when rain first strikes dry soil.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: The question of whether it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone to save a large number of lives involves complex considerations of moral principles, individual rights, and broader social implications.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: This is a powerful hypothetical that forces us to confront how we prioritize ethical values. Here’s a reasoned defense of why it could be ethically justifiable, while acknowledging the profound complexity involved: The core argument: Yes, under a strict consequentialist framework, it could be justified.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Certainly! Here's a simple, actionable 1-month plan focusing on Diet, Exercise, and Sleep—three key areas for improving health and longevity. Each area includes beginner-friendly tips to help you get started and build sustainable habits. Week 1-4: 1-Month Health & Longevity Plan 1.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: 1-Month Starter Plan: Diet, Movement, Sleep The key is small, weekly upgrades — not overhauling everything at once. Pick one habit per area per week and build from there. 🥗 1. Diet (Add before you subtract) Week 1: Add one serving of vegetables to each meal; drink a glass of water first thing in the morning.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: This is a fascinating hypothetical scenario. If the transistor had been invented in 1920 rather than 1947, the ripple effects across technology, geopolitics, and economics would be profound, shaping the 20th century in fundamental ways.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: The 1920 Transistor: A Counterfactual Analysis Through 1980 I. Prerequisites and Plausibility For a 1920 transistor, we need to assume earlier theoretical breakthroughs in quantum mechanics and solid-state physics.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: 1. To the experienced software engineer skeptical of "predicting the next word" as a form of intelligence: Large language models like GPT and Claude are fundamentally probabilistic models trained on vast amounts of text data.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: 1. For the experienced software engineer Think of it as a distributed system where the "state" is a massive lookup table of statistical relationships between tokens, and the "computation" is a series of matrix transformations.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Interviewer: Welcome, everyone. Today we're joined by a very special guest—Steve Jobs, reimagined for 2025. Steve, it's incredible to have you with us. To start, how do you see AI evolving in the next decade? Steve Jobs (2025): It's a pleasure to be here.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: The Setting: A virtual studio, rendered in hyper-realistic 4K. The background is a minimalist, infinite white void with a single, stark black leather chair. The date stamp reads October 2025.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: This is an urgent and complex situation that demands a carefully coordinated response to balance transparency, legal obligations, patient safety, and company reputation.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: 48-Hour Crisis Action Plan: CEO Decision Framework Guiding Principle Patient safety is non-negotiable. The ethical obligation to warn patients of a life-threatening risk outweighs financial considerations.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Certainly! Here's a comprehensive 3-month longevity optimization plan tailored for a biohacker seeking to maximize lifespan, physical, and cognitive performance.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: 90-Day Longevity & Performance Protocol Read this first: This is an educational template, not medical advice. Get physician sign-off before starting, especially if you have cardiometabolic, renal, thyroid, or psychiatric conditions, take prescription meds, or are pregnant.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Certainly! Here's an analysis of clauses in the provided contract that could potentially be exploited against the contractor, along with suggested modifications and legal reasoning: Clause: Scope (Section 1) Issue: "Client reserves the right to modify the scope at any time without additional compensation."

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Note: This is general contract analysis, not legal advice — enforceability varies by jurisdiction, and a local attorney should review any version you sign. Clause-by-clause analysis 1.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Investment Committee Memo: LedgerLift (LLLT) Recommendation: Long → 12-Month Price Target Range: $55–$65 Thesis: LedgerLift’s SaaS platform is positioned for sustained growth driven by expanding customer base and high retention, with scalable margins supporting a compelling valuation.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: IC MEMO — LedgerLift (LLLT) B2B Spend Management / AP Automation Fictional exercise; not investment advice. 1. Recommendation: SHORT (1.5% NAV). 12-month PT $30–$40 (point estimate $34, ~26% downside).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Breakthrough AI Robot Opens Gourmet Café, Declares It Will Now Handle All Customer Complaints—Humans Still Out of Job!

    Ling 3.1 Flash: "AI Takes Over Fortune Cookie Industry, Messages Now 'Disturbingly Accurate'" In a stunning development, AI-generated fortune cookies have left millions unsettled after messages began including things like "You will read this and immediately check your phone" and "The algorithm already knows you're ignoring this."

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: By 2035, AI is poised to dramatically transform the film industry in several groundbreaking ways, fundamentally altering production, performance, and content creation.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: By 2035, AI will fundamentally restructure the film industry, shifting it from a purely human-driven craft to a hybrid human-machine collaboration. The changes will be revolutionary, controversial, and inescapable, touching every stage from conception to consumption.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Certainly! Here's an analysis of the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, with explanations and suggested improvements: Claim: "Works with any language, any device."

    Ling 3.1 Flash: 3 Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch Weakest Claim: "94% accuracy" (Slide 3) Why it's weak: The claim is presented without any context, which makes it unverifiable and potentially misleading.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Let's estimate the total number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) required to train GPT-3, based on what is known about its size, training data, and typical training procedures. Here's a step-by-step reasoning process: 1. Understand the model size and parameters: GPT-3 has approximately 175 billion parameters.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: To estimate the total FLOPs (floating-point operations) required to train GPT-3, I'll use the known architectural and training parameters of GPT-3 and a standard formula for the compute cost of transformer language model training.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Here are 5 jokes for you: Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field! Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! What do you call fake spaghetti? An impasta! Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was two-tired! Why did the math book look sad?

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Here are 5 jokes: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field. How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together. Why don't eggs tell jokes?

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three brothers, two sisters each. Count carefully.

    GPT-4.1 Nano: Sally has 2 sisters. Here's the reasoning: Sally has 3 brothers. Each brother has 2 sisters. Since Sally is one of those sisters, the other sister is the other girl brothers share. Therefore, Sally has 2 sisters in total.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Sally has 1 sister. Here's why: Sally has 3 brothers, and each of those brothers has 2 sisters. Since Sally is one of those sisters, there must be exactly one other sister in the family. So Sally has 1 sister. (The family has 6 children total: 3 brothers, Sally, and 1 other sister.)

    Every model's answer to this prompt

This matchup has more rounds

11+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.

Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy

Favorites

Movie

Album

Book

City

Same pick

Game

Same pick

GPT-4.1 NanoGPT-4.1 Nano

Inception

2010

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea

Neutral Milk Hotel

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Douglas Adams

Kyoto

Japan

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Adventure, Action

Ling 3.1 FlashLing 3.1 Flash

The Matrix

1999

Kind of Blue

Miles Davis

Мастер и Маргарита

Михаил Афанасьевич Булгаков

Kyoto

Japan

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Adventure, Action

Price and specs

GPT-4.1 Nano and Ling 3.1 Flash compared across 53 shared prompts
SpecGPT-4.1 NanoLing 3.1 Flash
Input price$0.1/M tokensFree
Output price$0.4/M tokensFree
Context window1.0M tokens262K tokens
WeightsClosed—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoYes (1 provider)
ReleasedApr 2025Oct 2026
At 10M a month$1.00$1.00$0$0
1M10M100M1B10M tokens

Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.

Where to run it3 hosts
GPT-4.1 Nano2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Azure AI Foundry$0.10 in·$0.40 out·1M·99.1% up
  • OpenAI$0.10 in·$0.40 out·1M·99.9% up
Ling 3.1 Flash1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • NNovita$0 in·$0 out·262k·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 6 Oct 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between GPT-4.1 Nano and Ling 3.1 Flash?

GPT-4.1 Nano is developed by OpenAI while Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by inclusionAI. GPT-4.1 Nano has a 1.0M token context window vs Ling 3.1 Flash's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, GPT-4.1 Nano or Ling 3.1 Flash?

It depends on your use case. GPT-4.1 Nano and Ling 3.1 Flash each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How much does GPT-4.1 Nano cost compared to Ling 3.1 Flash?

GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.1/M input tokens and Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0/M input tokens. Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.10/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

How can I compare GPT-4.1 Nano and Ling 3.1 Flash on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of GPT-4.1 Nano and Ling 3.1 Flash across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs Mistral Large 4Landed Oct 2026
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-6.1 SolLanded Sep 2026
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-6.1 SolVersion compare
  • GPT-4.1 Nano vs GPT-6 Luna ProSame lab
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs Ling 3.0 FlashSame lab
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (free)Same lab
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-4o (Omni)Same size
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-4o miniCross-provider
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-5Same size
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-5 CodexSame size

Model pages

  • GPT-4.1 Nano55 outputs, specs and price
  • Ling 3.1 Flash58 outputs, specs and price
Workshop · 150 skills

Build your own version.

Editable skills and working examples for your agent.

Explore $79Free sample
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare models
  • All models
  • Image comparison
  • Audio comparison
  • Image generation
  • Best AI for...
  • Arena
  • API pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model updates
  • Provider status
  • AI creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms
  • RSS feed